Talk:Anti-shipper

I feel iffy about the example ship section, especially since the examples are from only one fandom. Perhaps the list should mention fandoms where there's a lot of antishipper activity.

Another thought: This isn't the same phenomenon exactly (or is it??), but seems related to some of the TJLC wank and Sherlock 221b con wank in 2015, where fans were accusing other fans of p~dophilia. I also found an August 2015 example of fans creating a new ship_manifesto on tumblr, but disallowing "Abusive Ships" and "large age differences" About Us, ^{Archived version} LJ fans were taken aback.--aethel (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect/misleading info/theories

I haven't touched the "Current Use" section but the first line is this:

'Beginning around 2016 in tumblr fandom, anti-shipper has been used to describe fans who attack a ship and its shippers with arguments that it is morally wrong, for example the ship is "pedophilic"'

This isn't true, Anti-Ship stuff like this existed on DeviantArt for about a decade prior as I have shown in the earlier section. Many fans theorize that anti-shipping began on tumblr or with gen z but it is factually untrue. I think these theories belong somewhere on fanlore because they are a widespread belief, but its misleading to act like they are true when there are anti-ship clubs from 2005. I think that section needs to be reworked for accuracy. There's 10+ years of anti-shipping in many fandoms that this page was just ignoring. TimeFan (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your wonderful new section on Deviant Art's anti-ship history. We should definitely work on your section (creating stable archive links, adding dates etc. I think the anti-ZADR Club needs its own page given its long history - would you feel up to tackling that? Particularly notable is the Club rules of no-flaming fans of the ship/pairing. Finally, given fandom's 30+ year history I suspect that the more we dig, the more we'll find that anti-ship behavior existed long before deviantart...the question of when the term "anti" or "anti-ship" came into use is still one that needs resolving (and your new data helps). Up through the 1990s, we used the word 'pairing' not ship. I don't recall if we had a term denoting those who were "anti" or "against" a specific pairing. It was usually "no slash" or "No X/Z (name of pairing) allowed". MeeDee (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I am planning to add more info here and in other places about DeviantArt. It seems like "anti-ship" is an older term than "anti-shipper" I'll make the anti-ZADR club page sometime soon. TimeFan (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Links and References

As I was trying to use this page to find meta created by anti-shippers, I realized just how little (if not all, I'm not sure) of the links and refs at the bottom of the page are actually proshipper meta discussing anti-shippers, rather than anti-shippers discussing meta amongst themselves. Trying to find good anti-shipper meta by anti-shippers is turning out to be a difficult task for me, so if anyone comes across any it would be great if you could include it on this article! :) Patchlamb (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "good anti-shipper meta." Purity culture and harassment are harmful per se. Socketysock584 (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For meta by an anti-shipper that gives insight into the mindset of antis see The Problem With “Fiction ≠ Reality”. --Doro (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That's great, I'll include it on the page. I may sort through the meta links at the bottom of the page and separate them by meta by anti-shippers and meta by pro-shippers, I think that would be helpful for anyone looking for specific meta by the differing groups. Patchlamb (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. Just keep in mind that there is no "both sides" to this. The author of this meta posted it with the words "I've written a doc explaining why pro-shippers are scum and how fictional pedophilia is the same as real pedophilia." The premise of this position is inherently flawed. Someone already posted FACT CHECK: The Problem With “Fiction ≠ Reality” and someone graded the paper. So many comments on this. For example: Terrible essay that lacks sources and citations. It is, however, filled with misinformation and a clear bias view, on top of being a perfect example of an Argumentum Ad Fastidium in an essay format. --Doro (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand the topic(s) are contentious, but the point of adding meta links isn't to argue for or against them, just to link to them as references to what others believe and have said on those contentious topics. The majority of the meta links here are by proshippers talking about their opinions on anti-shippers, or otherwise the two groups arguing with one another, rather than anti-shippers talking about anti-shippers/sharing anti-shipper beliefs amongst themselves. Since it's an article about anti-shippers, only listing meta by proshippers seems to be counter intuitive, even though technically they are talking about anti-shippers. That's why I've been looking for more meta by and for anti-shippers, since it is severely lacking under the meta section at the moment. Though, if you really feel more proshipper meta pieces are still needed due to the one anti-shipper meta piece having inherent flaws, then those articles could always be referenced/linked next to the link of the anti-shipper meta. Also, seeing as that specific piece has a lot of controversy surrounding it with all that useful counter-meta, perhaps it would also make for a good Fanlore article in itself. The counter-meta pieces would be excellent to reference and quote on a page were one to be made for that anti-shipper piece. Patchlamb (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don‘t think it needs more links, I think it needs proper framing. Anti-shipping is about justifying harassment. There are those who think there is no justification for harassment and those who think that‘s a perfectly fine tool in the arena of online interaction (for example outing a queer artist to their family in a country where this could mean a death sentence). To get support for the latter position, accusations like pedo get weaponized until they lose all meaning. Claiming the abuse of living and breathing children is the same thing as writing about bad stuff happening to a character is the absurd extreme this approach leads to. Presenting it as a difference of opinion about shipping preferences doesn‘t really hit the mark. I‘m just saying there is a reason why there is no good meta for anti-shipping. --Doro (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Bias

Why is this page so mealy-mouthed when it comes to condemning the ship police and so "both sides" when it comes to pro-shippers? It is not harmful to ship fictional ships. Period. Socketysock584 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello there Socketysock584, do you have any specific instances in the article that seem bias to you? Patchlamb (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Very belated followup that I think this criticism is from a fail_fandomanon discussion on 11 May 2021. Other comments about bias on this page: [1][2]. Since 2021 I've made some edits to try to address them, so I don't know if the false balance criticism still applies.--aethel (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Does this line fit the PPOV?

I stumbled across this article and was a little upset to find this attribution: "BabyCharmanderK, both confirming it was only a rumor but spreading the rumor regardless. May 11, 2017[23]"

I'm the original author of that Reddit thread and I regret titling the thread the way I did--my intention with the thread had been to warn people, to point out that ships aren't something to hurt people over (since some people who assumed this was over shipping were defending the criminal), and also to ask for more info (since I wrote that very shortly after information came out about the "needle cookie" situation, and I was very freaked out at the time), but in my haste and anxiety I made some foolish choices in how I wrote things there, and I hate how my thread was used to further spread rumors. It was not my intention to spread them at all.

The article on PPOV states that it "is non-judgmental regarding viewpoints," but the attribution I quoted feels judgmental toward me, though I could be wrong here. I would like to edit the attribution to clarify that I was "unintentionally spreading the rumor" but I felt I should probably ask here first. BabyCharmander (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes BabyCharmander, that sounds like a fine edit. Apologies for inflammatory language being used. Since you're the OP of that source, if you have any further meta on it (such as if you've since made other posts discussing your involvement with that Undertale thread/theory), that would be awesome to add. Welcome to Fanlore as well! If you have any questions on editing or creating new pages don't be afraid to ask. Patchlamb (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to welcome you to Fanlore too, BabyCharmander. Thank you for adressing the issue, I'm looking forward to your edit. SecurityBreach (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome BabyCharmander! I went ahead and made that change because I realised you might not be set up for notifications, or may not have felt comfortable making the edit yourself. I hope that was okay and thank you again for bringing this to other editors attention. --23:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

hoaxes or rumors?

The "Hoaxes about Anti-shipper violence" section describes two incidents, but the first incident isn't a hoax; it's a rumor/belief/assumption about the motive of someone who did attack an artist. And from the writeup here, I gather that although it isn't proven that the person was an antishipper, it could still be an antishipper after all. I would rename the section to "Rumors about Anti-shipper violence"--aethel (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

move quote?

I'm not enthusiastic about starting any page with a long quote, especially not this quote on this page--the quote addresses the current popular definition of antis, but the main text starts off saying that the term has been around awhile and had multiple definitions. Furthermore, the quote is misleading in framing the term as one of two equal sides in a "debate", when the issue for most fans is that anti-shippers appeared first and started harassing people. The pro-shippers showing up to debate the antis is a sideshow that happened later.--aethel (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I moved the quote to a new pro vs antishipper section.--aethel (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

self-designation?

Anyone know what the current trend is on whether antis call themselves antis or not? I saw a fail_fandomanon thread last month where people said antis had recently stopped calling themselves antis.[3] I've also seen a few posts I didn't keep track of along the theme of "why are my normal person opinions being described as 'anti'?" I've seen some "antiproship" tumblr tags as well.--aethel (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Issues about adult anti shipper harassing children

I believe you saw the articles, posts and tweets about an anti adult who coerced a child to harass another because of the ships he sent. Here is a small compilation of comments about found in Tumblr https://skysiinger.tumblr.com/post/699018139573370880/radvice-i-got-a-phone-call-from-my-daughters --Ellakbhesse (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think people decided that reddit post was fake. "It just sounds like someone familiar with fandom subculture on Twitter trying to pretend they aren't, but showing their hand imo." [4] Reddit posts written from the point of view of a non-fannish parent about their children becoming antis has become its own subgenre, and I'm not sure if any of them are real.--aethel (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Self Description and Terminology

I think this section name is both vague and inaccurate--I would rename it to something like Other Meanings of the Term "Anti" or Suggested Alternative Terminology depending on which way the section gets developed. Right now there's just one quote that is way too long and from a tumblr post with only 200 notes, so it may be overemphasizing a very niche talking point. The post argues that the term "anti" is too ambiguous on its own, has been taken up by online predators, and that fans should use more specific terms instead. But I hope the concerns expressed in the tumblr post are a very niche edge case. "anti" is used to mean different things in many different communities, and this section implies that the only other meaning is in the context of sexual abuse of real life children or animals. The post is also from 4 years ago, and their plea for terminology change obviously had no effect.--aethel (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

related academic works?

A paper and an edited volume were added to the list that have anti-fandom in the title--based on the linked abstracts, it looks like these works are indeed about anti-fandom and not anti-shippers. Has anyone verified that these works contain information relevant to antishippers? Meanwhile, I found a master's thesis[5] --aethel (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I moved the anti-fandom academic works to the anti-fandom page. Meanwhile, I looked on Google Scholar and found more academic papers (some masters' theses) about anti-shippers to add. The first one I tried to read (Urbańczyk) used this page circa 2022 as a source and claimed that proshipper was short for problematic shipper :( --aethel (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)